task -set blend tolerance default based on machine units #1853

c-morley · 2022-07-20T05:16:49Z

A very common newbee complaint is huge corner rounding.
This is caused by linuxcnc setting the default blend tolerance to maximum.
Now we set it to a (seemingly) reasonable default depending if the machine
is metric or inch.

A very common newbee complaint is huge corner rounding. This is caused by linuxcnc setting the default blend tolerance to maximum. Now we set it to a (seemingly) reasonable default depending if the machine is metric or inch.

petterreinholdtsen · 2022-07-20T06:46:09Z

This change cause tests in the test suite to fail. To see the errors yourself, run 'scripts/runtests tests/' after a local build. I guess, either the tests need to be modified, or the change need to be disabled by default.

hansu · 2022-07-20T07:46:25Z

Is there anything against having an even value if the units are mm? So 0.01 instead of 0.0254.

petterreinholdtsen · 2022-07-20T08:21:19Z

[Hans]

Is there anything against having an even value if the units are mm? So 0.01 instead of 0.0254.

I guess the idea was to use the same value for both, and 0.001" is 0.0254mm. I guess the real question is what kind of blend tolerance do we want to use by default? If we want 0.01mm, the inch value should probably be 0.0004", not 0.001". My gut feeling is that 0.03mm is probably within reasonable tolerance of hobbyinst machines, while 0.01 might be a bit tight, but I have no good reference to point at for this opinion. Anyone know what the competitors are using as their default tolerance?

…

-- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen

c-morley · 2022-07-20T12:44:41Z

Yes I forgot to run the tests locally. I will fix the tests soon.
Yes I picked .0254 as equivalent. Could round it to .03 or something close. Whats a good value?

hansu · 2022-07-20T13:02:43Z

The question is if it has to be equivalent. A value like 0.0254 as precision makes not much sense when not knowing that its derived from inches.

Furthermore I think 0.01 is also a good value for hobby machines as it is only the reference value. Position error has to be added to that.

c-morley · 2022-07-20T13:11:25Z

You think metric should be 3 times tighter then imperial by default?
It may even be that .0001 and .00254 would be useable - I just found .001 (inch) in the forums.

In reality the number should be small enough that it doesn't matter if it's an oddish number.
and if it does matter then it should be set by the gcode.

samcoinc · 2022-07-20T13:21:09Z

This will really change the performance of linuxcnc as far as constant velocity goes.. .005" or .2mm would be my thought. .0001" is going to act almost like exact stop mode.

…

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 8:11 AM c-morley ***@***.***> wrote: You think metric should be 3 times tighter then imperial by default? It may even be that .0001 and .00254 would be useable - I just found .001 (inch) in the forums. In reality the number should be small enough that it doesn't matter if it's an oddish number. and if it does matter then it should be set by the gcode. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1853 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEHRGQRPO74HSNX6MRX2GCDVU73I5ANCNFSM54CHNQXA> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

samcoinc · 2022-07-20T13:22:49Z

or .1mm .004"

…

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 8:20 AM Sam Sokolik ***@***.***> wrote: This will really change the performance of linuxcnc as far as constant velocity goes.. .005" or .2mm would be my thought. .0001" is going to act almost like exact stop mode. On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 8:11 AM c-morley ***@***.***> wrote: > You think metric should be 3 times tighter then imperial by default? > It may even be that .0001 and .00254 would be useable - I just found .001 > (inch) in the forums. > > In reality the number should be small enough that it doesn't matter if > it's an oddish number. > and if it does matter then it should be set by the gcode. > > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#1853 (comment)>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEHRGQRPO74HSNX6MRX2GCDVU73I5ANCNFSM54CHNQXA> > . > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message > ID: ***@***.***> >

c-morley · 2022-07-20T14:03:32Z

From my reading of the forum, it was suggested that a very small setting was still suffient to get reasonable corner speed. Have you done real world testing?
To be clear i am definitely preferring path following to speed as a default.

samcoinc · 2022-07-20T14:30:22Z

I did a ton of trajectory planner testing a long time ago.. ;) Maybe it isn't as bad as I remember. I just ran tux with a blend of .1mm and .01mm and the time changed from 1:05 to 1:10 ish.. sam

…

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 9:03 AM c-morley ***@***.***> wrote: From my reading of the forum, it was suggested that a very small setting was still suffient to get reasonable corner speed. Have you done real world testing? To be clear i am definitely preferring path following to speed as a default. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1853 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEHRGQURUXM3DK7ECOJTMX3VVABMBANCNFSM54CHNQXA> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

c-morley · 2022-07-20T16:52:39Z

I Remember u embarrassing Mach 3 :) could u try your test with .0001 setting and see the time difference?

c-morley · 2022-07-20T16:54:08Z

Or sorry u did .01 mm ok I think that tells us what we need. Thanks

samcoinc · 2022-07-20T17:05:08Z

I will say - most machines - you won't notice .001" path deviation... I would not go too far..

…

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 11:54 AM c-morley ***@***.***> wrote: Or sorry u did .01 mm ok I think that tells us what we need. Thanks — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1853 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEHRGQT4MONZ6XBPOMXS7H3VVAVLVANCNFSM54CHNQXA> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

petterreinholdtsen · 2022-07-21T08:33:17Z

I did a ton of trajectory planner testing a long time ago.. ;)

How did you do this testing? Can it be scripted and perhaps added to the tests/ collection?

petterreinholdtsen · 2022-07-21T08:38:50Z

src/emc/task/emccanon.cc

+    if (canon.lengthUnits == CANON_UNITS_INCHES) {
+        SET_MOTION_CONTROL_MODE(CANON_CONTINUOUS, .001);
+    } else {
+        SET_MOTION_CONTROL_MODE(CANON_CONTINUOUS, .0254);


Perhaps the code intent is expressed more clearly if you use something like .001 * MM_PER_INCH instead of .0254? The compiler will end up with the same value, so there will be no speed impact, but it will be more obvious that the intent is to use the same tolerance independent of units.

petterreinholdtsen · 2022-07-22T21:25:31Z

Based on the updated g0 test in <URL: #1859 >, I wrote a test script to run a simple 90 degree path and timed how different tolerances affected the run time in the simulator: Operation with tolerance 0.1 took 20 seconds Operation with tolerance 1 took 20 seconds Operation with tolerance 0.01 took 20 seconds Operation with tolerance 0.001 took 20 seconds Operation with tolerance 0 took 20 seconds A bit surprised there is no detectable time difference. Suspect I might be doing something wrong. These are the changes I did to the g0 test to run G1 with different G64 P values instead of using G0. I am not sure if this is a good way to test this, but hope it can inspire to create a more sensible test for this. diff -ur tests/motion/g0/motion-test.ini tests/motion/g1-tolerance/motion-test.ini --- tests/motion/g0/motion-test.ini 2022-07-14 23:53:04.436565661 +0200 +++ tests/motion/g1-tolerance/motion-test.ini 2022-07-22 11:46:47.682429732 +0200 @@ -66,8 +66,8 @@ JOINTS = 3 [AXIS_X] -MIN_LIMIT = -40.0 -MAX_LIMIT = 40.0 +MIN_LIMIT = -400.0 +MAX_LIMIT = 400.0 MAX_VELOCITY = 4 MAX_ACCELERATION = 100.0 @@ -79,8 +79,8 @@ BACKLASH = 0.000 INPUT_SCALE = 4000 OUTPUT_SCALE = 1.000 -MIN_LIMIT = -40.0 -MAX_LIMIT = 40.0 +MIN_LIMIT = -400.0 +MAX_LIMIT = 400.0 FERROR = 0.050 MIN_FERROR = 0.010 HOME_OFFSET = 0.0 @@ -92,8 +92,8 @@ # Second axis [AXIS_Y] -MIN_LIMIT = -40.0 -MAX_LIMIT = 40.0 +MIN_LIMIT = -400.0 +MAX_LIMIT = 400.0 MAX_VELOCITY = 4 MAX_ACCELERATION = 100.0 @@ -105,8 +105,8 @@ BACKLASH = 0.000 INPUT_SCALE = 4000 OUTPUT_SCALE = 1.000 -MIN_LIMIT = -40.0 -MAX_LIMIT = 40.0 +MIN_LIMIT = -400.0 +MAX_LIMIT = 400.0 FERROR = 0.050 MIN_FERROR = 0.010 HOME_OFFSET = 0.0 @@ -118,8 +118,8 @@ # Third axis [AXIS_Z] -MIN_LIMIT = -4.0 -MAX_LIMIT = 4.0 +MIN_LIMIT = -40.0 +MAX_LIMIT = 40.0 MAX_VELOCITY = 4 MAX_ACCELERATION = 100.0 @@ -131,8 +131,8 @@ BACKLASH = 0.000 INPUT_SCALE = 4000 OUTPUT_SCALE = 1.000 -MIN_LIMIT = -4.0 -MAX_LIMIT = 4.0 +MIN_LIMIT = -40.0 +MAX_LIMIT = 40.0 FERROR = 0.050 MIN_FERROR = 0.010 HOME_OFFSET = 1.0 Only in tests/motion/g1-tolerance/: motion-test.ini.~1~ diff -ur tests/motion/g0/test.sh tests/motion/g1-tolerance/test.sh --- tests/motion/g0/test.sh 2022-07-22 11:18:35.579823482 +0200 +++ tests/motion/g1-tolerance/test.sh 2022-07-22 23:15:10.413323669 +0200 @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ wait_for_pin() { pin="$1" value="$2" - maxwait=10 # seconds + maxwait=20 # seconds while [ 0 -lt $maxwait ] \ && [ "$value" != "$(halcmd -s show pin $pin | awk '{print $4}')" ]; do sleep 1 @@ -19,49 +19,64 @@ exit 1 fi } +runtest() { + tolerance=$1

…

-linuxcnc motion-test.ini & -linuxcncpid=$! + linuxcnc motion-test.ini & + linuxcncpid=$!

-wait_for_pin motion.in-position TRUE + wait_for_pin motion.in-position TRUE

-echo starting to capture data -halsampler -t >| result.halsamples & -samplerpid=$! + echo starting to capture data + halsampler -t >| result.halsamples & + samplerpid=$! + + start=$(date +%s) + ( + echo hello EMC mt 1.0 + echo set enable EMCTOO + + echo set mode manual + echo set estop off + echo set machine on + + echo set home 0 + echo set home 1 + echo set home 2 + + # Wait for homing to complete + wait_for_pin motion.is-all-homed TRUE + + echo set mode mdi + echo set mdi F100 + echo set mdi G64 P$tolerance + echo set mdi G1 X0 Y0 + echo set mdi G1 X10 Y10 + echo set mdi G1 X20 Y0 + + # Wait for movement to complete + wait_for_pin joint.0.pos-fb 20 + wait_for_pin joint.0.in-position TRUE + wait_for_pin joint.1.in-position TRUE + + echo shutdown + ) | nc localhost 5007 + end=$(date +%s) + + echo "Operation with tolerance $tolerance took $(($end - $start)) seconds" + + kill $samplerpid + wait $samplerpid + echo finished capturing data -( - echo hello EMC mt 1.0 - echo set enable EMCTOO - - echo set mode manual - echo set estop off - echo set machine on - - echo set home 0 - echo set home 1 - echo set home 2 - - # Wait for homing to complete - wait_for_pin motion.is-all-homed TRUE - - echo set mode mdi - dist=1 - echo set mdi g0x$dist - - # Wait for movement to complete - wait_for_pin joint.0.pos-fb $dist - wait_for_pin joint.0.in-position TRUE - wait_for_pin joint.1.in-position TRUE - - echo shutdown -) | nc localhost 5007 - -kill $samplerpid -wait $samplerpid -echo finished capturing data + # wait for linuxcnc to finish + wait $linuxcncpid +} -# wait for linuxcnc to finish -wait $linuxcncpid +runtest 1 +runtest 0.1 +runtest 0.01 +runtest 0.001 +runtest 0 exit 0 -

-- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen

samcoinc · 2022-07-22T21:31:33Z

the acceleration of 100 is quite high.... also - am I seeing the test correctly? + echo set mode mdi + echo set mdi F100 + echo set mdi G64 P$tolerance + echo set mdi G1 X0 Y0 + echo set mdi G1 X10 Y10 + echo set mdi G1 X20 Y0 A - I don't know if mdi moves are blended B - even if it did - there are only 2 or 3 corners so not much 'blending' sa,

…

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 4:25 PM petterreinholdtsen ***@***.***> wrote: Based on the updated g0 test in <URL: #1859 >, I wrote a test script to run a simple 90 degree path and timed how different tolerances affected the run time in the simulator: Operation with tolerance 0.1 took 20 seconds Operation with tolerance 1 took 20 seconds Operation with tolerance 0.01 took 20 seconds Operation with tolerance 0.001 took 20 seconds Operation with tolerance 0 took 20 seconds A bit surprised there is no detectable time difference. Suspect I might be doing something wrong. These are the changes I did to the g0 test to run G1 with different G64 P values instead of using G0. I am not sure if this is a good way to test this, but hope it can inspire to create a more sensible test for this. diff -ur tests/motion/g0/motion-test.ini tests/motion/g1-tolerance/motion-test.ini --- tests/motion/g0/motion-test.ini 2022-07-14 23:53:04.436565661 +0200 +++ tests/motion/g1-tolerance/motion-test.ini 2022-07-22 11:46:47.682429732 +0200 @@ -66,8 +66,8 @@ JOINTS = 3 [AXIS_X] -MIN_LIMIT = -40.0 -MAX_LIMIT = 40.0 +MIN_LIMIT = -400.0 +MAX_LIMIT = 400.0 MAX_VELOCITY = 4 MAX_ACCELERATION = 100.0 @@ -79,8 +79,8 @@ BACKLASH = 0.000 INPUT_SCALE = 4000 OUTPUT_SCALE = 1.000 -MIN_LIMIT = -40.0 -MAX_LIMIT = 40.0 +MIN_LIMIT = -400.0 +MAX_LIMIT = 400.0 FERROR = 0.050 MIN_FERROR = 0.010 HOME_OFFSET = 0.0 @@ -92,8 +92,8 @@ # Second axis [AXIS_Y] -MIN_LIMIT = -40.0 -MAX_LIMIT = 40.0 +MIN_LIMIT = -400.0 +MAX_LIMIT = 400.0 MAX_VELOCITY = 4 MAX_ACCELERATION = 100.0 @@ -105,8 +105,8 @@ BACKLASH = 0.000 INPUT_SCALE = 4000 OUTPUT_SCALE = 1.000 -MIN_LIMIT = -40.0 -MAX_LIMIT = 40.0 +MIN_LIMIT = -400.0 +MAX_LIMIT = 400.0 FERROR = 0.050 MIN_FERROR = 0.010 HOME_OFFSET = 0.0 @@ -118,8 +118,8 @@ # Third axis [AXIS_Z] -MIN_LIMIT = -4.0 -MAX_LIMIT = 4.0 +MIN_LIMIT = -40.0 +MAX_LIMIT = 40.0 MAX_VELOCITY = 4 MAX_ACCELERATION = 100.0 @@ -131,8 +131,8 @@ BACKLASH = 0.000 INPUT_SCALE = 4000 OUTPUT_SCALE = 1.000 -MIN_LIMIT = -4.0 -MAX_LIMIT = 4.0 +MIN_LIMIT = -40.0 +MAX_LIMIT = 40.0 FERROR = 0.050 MIN_FERROR = 0.010 HOME_OFFSET = 1.0 Only in tests/motion/g1-tolerance/: motion-test.ini.~1~ diff -ur tests/motion/g0/test.sh tests/motion/g1-tolerance/test.sh --- tests/motion/g0/test.sh 2022-07-22 11:18:35.579823482 +0200 +++ tests/motion/g1-tolerance/test.sh 2022-07-22 23:15:10.413323669 +0200 @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ wait_for_pin() { pin="$1" value="$2" - maxwait=10 # seconds + maxwait=20 # seconds while [ 0 -lt $maxwait ] \ && [ "$value" != "$(halcmd -s show pin $pin | awk '{print $4}')" ]; do sleep 1 @@ -19,49 +19,64 @@ exit 1 fi } +runtest() { + tolerance=$1 -linuxcnc motion-test.ini & -linuxcncpid=$! + linuxcnc motion-test.ini & + linuxcncpid=$! -wait_for_pin motion.in-position TRUE + wait_for_pin motion.in-position TRUE -echo starting to capture data -halsampler -t >| result.halsamples & -samplerpid=$! + echo starting to capture data + halsampler -t >| result.halsamples & + samplerpid=$! + + start=$(date +%s) + ( + echo hello EMC mt 1.0 + echo set enable EMCTOO + + echo set mode manual + echo set estop off + echo set machine on + + echo set home 0 + echo set home 1 + echo set home 2 + + # Wait for homing to complete + wait_for_pin motion.is-all-homed TRUE + + echo set mode mdi + echo set mdi F100 + echo set mdi G64 P$tolerance + echo set mdi G1 X0 Y0 + echo set mdi G1 X10 Y10 + echo set mdi G1 X20 Y0 + + # Wait for movement to complete + wait_for_pin joint.0.pos-fb 20 + wait_for_pin joint.0.in-position TRUE + wait_for_pin joint.1.in-position TRUE + + echo shutdown + ) | nc localhost 5007 + end=$(date +%s) + + echo "Operation with tolerance $tolerance took $(($end - $start)) seconds" + + kill $samplerpid + wait $samplerpid + echo finished capturing data -( - echo hello EMC mt 1.0 - echo set enable EMCTOO - - echo set mode manual - echo set estop off - echo set machine on - - echo set home 0 - echo set home 1 - echo set home 2 - - # Wait for homing to complete - wait_for_pin motion.is-all-homed TRUE - - echo set mode mdi - dist=1 - echo set mdi g0x$dist - - # Wait for movement to complete - wait_for_pin joint.0.pos-fb $dist - wait_for_pin joint.0.in-position TRUE - wait_for_pin joint.1.in-position TRUE - - echo shutdown -) | nc localhost 5007 - -kill $samplerpid -wait $samplerpid -echo finished capturing data + # wait for linuxcnc to finish + wait $linuxcncpid +} -# wait for linuxcnc to finish -wait $linuxcncpid +runtest 1 +runtest 0.1 +runtest 0.01 +runtest 0.001 +runtest 0 exit 0 - -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1853 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEHRGQUQM2FIQNPWEO2SCG3VVMGVNANCNFSM54CHNQXA> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

petterreinholdtsen · 2022-07-22T21:49:15Z

[samcoinc]

the acceleration of 100 is quite high.... also - am I seeing the test correctly?

This is the test, yes:

+ echo set mode mdi + echo set mdi F100 + echo set mdi G64 P$tolerance + echo set mdi G1 X0 Y0 + echo set mdi G1 X10 Y10 + echo set mdi G1 X20 Y0

Perhaps you can come up with a better test?

A - I don't know if mdi moves are blended B - even if it did - there are only 2 or 3 corners so not much 'blending'

I do not know if MDI moves are blended either, nor do I know how to test using non-MDI mode. How can we tell if MDI instructions are blended?

…

-- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen

c-morley · 2022-07-22T23:54:40Z

Operation with tolerance 0.1 took 20 seconds
Operation with tolerance 1 took 20 seconds
Operation with tolerance 0.01 took 20 seconds
Operation with tolerance 0.001 took 20 seconds
Operation with tolerance 0 took 20 seconds

try it compared to g61
This seems to show that a very small value is sufficient for a good speed up.
There are also other setting to optimize:
http://linuxcnc.org/docs/devel/html/config/ini-config.html#sub:ini:sec:traj

A program with many short segments would show blending better (more time in acceleration phase rather then cruise phase)
Your test program should show the path deviation though.

petterreinholdtsen · 2022-07-23T05:30:48Z

[c-morley]

A program with many short segments would show blending better (more time in acceleration phase rather then cruise phase) Your test program should show the path deviation though.

I hope my example can inspire someone who know G-code and LinuxCNC better than me to come up with a test that demonstrate the effect of changing the tolerance. I am not competent to do so myself.

…

-- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen

silopolis · 2022-07-23T10:12:12Z

Le sam. 23 juil. 2022 à 07:31, petterreinholdtsen ***@***.***> a écrit :

[c-morley] > A program with many short segments would show blending better (more > time in acceleration phase rather then cruise phase) > Your test program should show the path deviation though.

Could a kind of routine plotting time and path deviation provided a range of blending tolerances be a machine tuning tool?

c-morley · 2022-07-23T20:09:40Z

it's more of a program tuning code. Machine can only do what the hardware will let it.

c-morley · 2022-07-28T02:30:19Z

thanks for your help to make this better. merged

petterreinholdtsen · 2022-10-11T09:07:26Z

I've unsuccessfully tried to trigger a slowdown using smaller and smaller G64 P# values. Is the fear of slowing down the machine overrated, or is the test code not correctly structured? -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen

andypugh · 2022-10-11T22:36:48Z

It will probably depend on the accelleration limits of the machine. Were you testing in a simulator? What were the acceleration limits?

c-morley · 2022-10-12T01:19:59Z

Have you been looking for path deviation as well as speed up?
Less path deviation is the main idea of the patch.

task -set blend tolerance default based on machine units

57f1b4a

A very common newbee complaint is huge corner rounding. This is caused by linuxcnc setting the default blend tolerance to maximum. Now we set it to a (seemingly) reasonable default depending if the machine is metric or inch.

runtests -fix startup test for G64 p startup change

96073cb

petterreinholdtsen reviewed Jul 21, 2022

View reviewed changes

task -make g64 p default obvious that it's a converted imperial number

c18c5c1

c-morley closed this Jul 28, 2022

c-morley deleted the cmorley/default_blend_tolerance branch July 28, 2022 02:35

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

task -set blend tolerance default based on machine units #1853

task -set blend tolerance default based on machine units #1853

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022

petterreinholdtsen commented Jul 20, 2022

hansu commented Jul 20, 2022

petterreinholdtsen commented Jul 20, 2022 via email

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022

hansu commented Jul 20, 2022

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022

samcoinc commented Jul 20, 2022 via email

samcoinc commented Jul 20, 2022 via email

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022

samcoinc commented Jul 20, 2022 via email

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022 •

edited

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022

samcoinc commented Jul 20, 2022 via email

petterreinholdtsen commented Jul 21, 2022

petterreinholdtsen Jul 21, 2022

petterreinholdtsen commented Jul 22, 2022 via email

samcoinc commented Jul 22, 2022 via email

petterreinholdtsen commented Jul 22, 2022 via email

c-morley commented Jul 22, 2022

petterreinholdtsen commented Jul 23, 2022 via email

silopolis commented Jul 23, 2022 via email

c-morley commented Jul 23, 2022

c-morley commented Jul 28, 2022

petterreinholdtsen commented Oct 11, 2022 via email

andypugh commented Oct 11, 2022

c-morley commented Oct 12, 2022

task -set blend tolerance default based on machine units #1853

task -set blend tolerance default based on machine units #1853

Conversation

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022

petterreinholdtsen commented Jul 20, 2022

hansu commented Jul 20, 2022

petterreinholdtsen commented Jul 20, 2022 via email

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022

hansu commented Jul 20, 2022

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022

samcoinc commented Jul 20, 2022 via email

samcoinc commented Jul 20, 2022 via email

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022

samcoinc commented Jul 20, 2022 via email

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022 • edited

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022

samcoinc commented Jul 20, 2022 via email

petterreinholdtsen commented Jul 21, 2022

petterreinholdtsen Jul 21, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

petterreinholdtsen commented Jul 22, 2022 via email

samcoinc commented Jul 22, 2022 via email

petterreinholdtsen commented Jul 22, 2022 via email

c-morley commented Jul 22, 2022

petterreinholdtsen commented Jul 23, 2022 via email

silopolis commented Jul 23, 2022 via email

c-morley commented Jul 23, 2022

c-morley commented Jul 28, 2022

petterreinholdtsen commented Oct 11, 2022 via email

andypugh commented Oct 11, 2022

c-morley commented Oct 12, 2022

c-morley commented Jul 20, 2022 •

edited